An empty chair speaks

[sackdance]

How the hell can anyone defend this guy?

[intelligentjetsfan]

How the hell can anyone defend this guy?

[SyracuseJet]

They are both teh fail. /government

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Timmy®]

this was the republican's election to lose, and they not only chose a mormon who parks money in the Carribean, they picked a guy who America has made clear they don't like. even republicans don't like him. obama should have been toast by now and the republicans have likely managed to get him four more years.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

this was the republican's election to lose, and they not only chose a mormon who parks money in the Carribean, they picked a guy who America has made clear they don't like. even republicans don't like him. obama should have been toast by now and the republicans have likely managed to get him four more years.

not only that but Obama does not even become president if not for stain that was the Bush years. He was so bad that most Americans ran to the polls to divorce themselves of his party in 08'. By the way that was why Bush was no where near Tampa Bay during the convention except for a 60 second video.

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

not only that but Obama does not even become president if not for stain that was the Bush years. He was so bad that most Americans ran to the polls to divorce themselves of his party in 08'. By the way that was why Bush was no where near Tampa Bay during the convention except for a 60 second video.

Originally Posted by Timmy®

this was the republican's election to lose, and they not only chose a mormon who parks money in the Carribean, they picked a guy who America has made clear they don't like. even republicans don't like him. obama should have been toast by now and the republicans have likely managed to get him four more years.

Sad that the 2 above statements are based in truth. More sad is that this country just fell again in global competitiveness.

Debt has gone from 10 to 16 trillion in 3.5 years. His goal is to have more than 50 percent of the country dependent on government and we are well above that now so I anticipate 4 more years.

Only government can provide entitlements, pensions to people in their 50's, 6 to 8 weeks vacation and have the receivers believe someone else should pay for that. The government is the post office.

[DDNYjets]

Obama might become Bush in terms of popularity if he gets another 4 years and we continue on this path to insolvency. He might do to the Dems what Bush did to the Reps. Only saving grace for Obama is that he has a ton of people on the nipple that will do anything NOT to get off.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

this was the republican's election to lose, and they not only chose a mormon who parks money in the Carribean, they picked a guy who America has made clear they don't like. even republicans don't like him. obama should have been toast by now and the republicans have likely managed to get him four more years.

The last election was the Democrats to win and they picked Obama over Hillary who is clearly head and shoulders better then Obama. Sadly both parties are pandering to their base and putting up people who show little ability to address the issues and lead.

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The last election was the Democrats to win and they picked Obama over Hillary who is clearly head and shoulders better then Obama. Sadly both parties are pandering to their base and putting up people who show little ability to address the issues and lead.

but at least the dems easily won the election that was handed to them.

i suppose republicans still have a shot, but it shouldn't be this close.

i'm guessing once Romney starts speaking in debates, it will be over for the republicans

repubs should have just picked an unknown who survived a skeletons in the closet check and told him to just keep his mouth shut.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

but at least the dems easily won the election that was handed to them.

i suppose republicans still have a shot, but it shouldn't be this close.

i'm guessing once Romney starts speaking in debates, it will be over for the republicans

repubs should have just picked an unknown who survived a skeletons in the closet check and told him to just keep his mouth shut.

My own take is this is one of the least important elections in my lifetime. Not because we don't have real issues but I don't see that much difference in the candidates or their ability to transcend partisan politics and actually do something productive.

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

My own take is this is one of the least important elections in my lifetime. Not because we don't have real issues but I don't see that much difference in the candidates or their ability to transcend partisan politics and actually do something productive.

the health care thing and continued cutting of wars make it pretty important

neither will solve jobs or the economy, we need to crash and burn and start over

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

the health care thing and continued cutting of wars make it pretty important

neither will solve jobs or the economy, we need to crash and burn and start over

At least you speak the truth here. The D vision of ignoring fiscal realities will certainly lead to the economy "crashing and burning". By 2020 entitlements will eat 90% of revenue. The government will be forced to inflate the currency which will only serve to prolong the agony. The truth is that it may be too late to fix things regardless. For me the thing is that it may not be too late. We may still have a chance to stave off the inevitable if we change course. We have one party promising to address the issues we face head on. The D's meanwhile are running an election based on saving a new entitlement which will cost trillions and benefit very few people. Essentially they are compounding the problems we have with their foolish policies. They don't even bother to address budget issues or the coming debacle. This country will have itself to blame if we don't at least try and elect representatives that will acknowledge the structural problems we face and attempt to solve them.

[nyctomjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

My own take is this is one of the least important elections in my lifetime. Not because we don't have real issues but I don't see that much difference in the candidates or their ability to transcend partisan politics and actually do something productive.

Right on the money with this post.

Both of these guys for lack of a better word suck. All ive heard from both sides is the same old extremist pandering. One is way out to the left the other tp the right. They have no real vision and both lack the backbone to end this partisan bull**** in Washington that is destroying this country.

This election has made it painfully clear that we need a viable third party to step up. The only way we will ever see real change in this country is when we do away with this two party system.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

At least you speak the truth here. The D vision of ignoring fiscal realities will certainly lead to the economy "crashing and burning". By 2020 entitlements will eat 90% of revenue. The government will be forced to inflate the currency which will only serve to prolong the agony. The truth is that it may be too late to fix things regardless. For me the thing is that it may not be too late. We may still have a chance to stave off the inevitable if we change course. We have one party promising to address the issues we face head on. The D's meanwhile are running an election based on saving a new entitlement which will cost trillions and benefit very few people. Essentially they are compounding the problems we have with their foolish policies. They don't even bother to address budget issues or the coming debacle. This country will have itself to blame if we don't at least try and elect representatives that will acknowledge the structural problems we face and attempt to solve them.

If head on means lowering tax rates while not getting rid of deductions then yes head on. If head on means destroying medicare to keep military funding at inflation adjusted levels then yes head on.

What cool aid are you drinking? The Republicans, like the Democrats aren't going to cut spending or bring in more real revenue, they are going to redistribute the bloated waste to their members instead of Democrats.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

the health care thing and continued cutting of wars make it pretty important

neither will solve jobs or the economy, we need to crash and burn and start over

What "Health Care Thing"? Obamacare is Law, and regardless of bluster, there is 0% chance of it being overturned if Romney wins. And as most liberals here will tell you, Obamacare is not what they want, they want Universal single-payor healthcare anyway.

As for the "cutting of wars", Iraq ended on the Bush timeline, and Obama has doubled down on Afghanistan for no real gain (and losing ALOT of American lives and money in the process, a fact rarely reported since Bush left office) and "won" a War in Libya as NATO, and opened new fronts by bombing or drone-striking in a whole host of nations. He's not exactly been an Anti-War/Anti-Attack President in his actions, and there is little cause to expect that to change.

By the way, you mentioned "stashing money in the Caymans" earlier Tim. Can you tell me (without a cut-n-paste from elsewhere) why thats a bad thing, exactly? I'm curious as to the demonization of where one holds a bank account(s).

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by Warfish

What "Health Care Thing"? Obamacare is Law, and regardless of bluster, there is 0% chance of it being overturned if Romney wins. And as most liberals here will tell you, Obamacare is not what they want, they want Universal single-payor healthcare anyway.

As for the "cutting of wars", Iraq ended on the Bush timeline, and Obama has doubled down on Afghanistan for no real gain (and losing ALOT of American lives and money in the process, a fact rarely reported since Bush left office) and "won" a War in Libya as NATO, and opened new fronts by bombing or drone-striking in a whole host of nations. He's not exactly been an Anti-War/Anti-Attack President in his actions, and there is little cause to expect that to change.

By the way, you mentioned "stashing money in the Caymans" earlier Tim. Can you tell me (without a cut-n-paste from elsewhere) why thats a bad thing, exactly? I'm curious as to the demonization of where one holds a bank account(s).

i'll admit that his promise to really cut back on the military has been disappointing. aside from his bombing campaigns which I know little about,
I'm confident he won't be starting new wars like we've seen in the recent past. he's found out that it's hard to stop a war machine so many are profiting from, although he should have been more persistent. i don't mean to casually brush this off, it's a real concern.

as for the cayman isles, are you kidding me? there are 190,000 businesses registered there. madoff was putting his money there so the government wouldn't see what's going on. lots of BS hedge funds where taxpayers pay only 15 percent. once he said "i haven't broke any tax laws" you knew he was taking advantage of loopholes most Americans don't. is it legal? pretty much. do Americans have the right to hold it against hi. I do and will.

As for some folks saying his taxes wouldn't have been different, others say they would have been. It's murky and almost impossible to trace all of his money because, well it's the Cayman Islands, and that's why the money is there.

I'm not a lib and am disappointed in much of Obama's reign. I'm glad I voted for him and would consider voting for a Republican, but not Romney. Not even close. I've voted for republicans in every election except two.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

If head on means lowering tax rates while not getting rid of deductions then yes head on. If head on means destroying medicare to keep military funding at inflation adjusted levels then yes head on.

What cool aid are you drinking? The Republicans, like the Democrats aren't going to cut spending or bring in more real revenue, they are going to redistribute the bloated waste to their members instead of Democrats.

You are saying that the Romney's plan doesn't cut spending? Just eliminating Obamacare saves 3 trillion over 10 years and adds 800Billion to medicare. They fix medicaid by block granting the money to the states. States can choose to use the cash to build free clinics in poor neighborhoods rather then pay for $5000 emergency room visits to diagnose the flu. If your contention is that Romney/Ryan plan doesn't go far enough I wont disagree but it is certainly better then the alternative plan of doing nothing.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

i'll admit that his promise to really cut back on the military has been disappointing. aside from his bombing campaigns which I know little about,
I'm confident he won't be starting new wars like we've seen in the recent past.

What do you base that confidence on? He "started" Wars in Libya, Pakistan (drone and missile strikes), Yemen (Drone and Missile strikes) and a number of other places we were not previously lauching strikes into.

he's found out that it's hard to stop a war machine so many are profiting from, although he should have been more persistent. i don't mean to casually brush this off, it's a real concern.

As for "difficulty to end wars" he, as President, wields 100% authority over our War fighting. He can end it was a two sentence presidential order if he wished it. There is no power that can stop him, he chooses to do what he chooses to do.

as for the cayman isles, are you kidding me? there are 190,000 businesses registered there. madoff was putting his money there so the government wouldn't see what's going on. lots of BS hedge funds where taxpayers pay only 15 percent. once he said "i haven't broke any tax laws" you knew he was taking advantage of loopholes most Americans don't. is it legal? pretty much. do Americans have the right to hold it against hi. I do and will.

So the basis of you anger over a perfectly legal action is "they have 190,000 businesses!" and "Bernie Madoff wuz here!"?

Do you have any actual evidence of wrongdoing to base your criticism on? Some law breaking? What makes a hedge fund "BS" btw, and how would you know one way or the other, you a hedge fund manager?

Sounds to me like you're just a regular stiff, like me, who has no idea what or why a Cayman island or Swiss bank account would or could be for, and simply finds it easy to demonize the "rich" because you, clearly, are not one of them.

As for some folks saying his taxes wouldn't have been different, others say they would have been. It's murky and almost impossible to trace all of his money because, well it's the Cayman Islands, and that's why the money is there.

The only "say" that counts is the IRS.

Do you have something from the IRS showing he comitted some form of wrongdoing?

Or are you just another jealous upper-middle-class warrior buying the class-warfare argument that "rich people" who follow the law are still bad and greedy people at heart because they won't give us 10 mil of his 20 mil income, and only gave us the legally required 3 mil instead?

How much tax (net) did you pay last year Tim?

I'm not a lib

Coulda fooled me. You sure buy into all their unproven personal attack, non-policy propaganda.

You know, like a birther and Obama.

and am disappointed in much of Obama's reign.

But he already has your vote locked down for 2012, because Romney is an evil Cayman Island dwelling tax-cheat War-Starter, apparently, right?

Suprised you didn't toss in a few "extreme" as well, that is the favored talking point these days...

I've voted for republicans in every election except two.

The always funny toss-in line almost every liberal here throws out to "prove" their unbiased opinions.

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by Warfish

So the basis of you anger over a perfectly legal action is "they have 190,000 businesses!" and "Bernie Madoff wuz here!"?

Do you have any actual evidence of wrongdoing to base your criticism on? Some law breaking? What makes a hedge fund "BS" btw, and how would you know one way or the other, you a hedge fund manager?

Sounds to me like you're just a regular stiff, like me, who has no idea what or why a Cayman island or Swiss bank account would or could be for, and simply finds it easy to demonize the "rich" because you, clearly, are not one of them.



The only "say" that counts is the IRS.

Do you have something from the IRS showing he comitted some form of wrongdoing?

Or are you just another jealous upper-middle-class warrior buying the class-warfare argument that "rich people" who follow the law are still bad and greedy people at heart because they won't give us 10 mil of his 20 mil income, and only gave us the legally required 3 mil instead?

How much tax (net) did you pay last year Tim?



Coulda fooled me. You sure buy into all their unproven personal attack, non-policy propaganda.

You know, like a birther and Obama.



But he already has your vote locked down for 2012, because Romney is an evil Cayman Island dwelling tax-cheat War-Starter, apparently, right?

Suprised you didn't toss in a few "extreme" as well, that is the favored talking point these days...



The always funny toss-in line almost every liberal here throws out to "prove" their unbiased opinions.

"The only "say" that counts is the IRS."

Wanna bet. My opinion, and the opinion of others, doesn't fall under the requirements of the courts. If we don't like him hiding money, we won't vote for him. We don't need proof. And I think he is hiding money and skipping out on taxes. I don't care if it's legal or not. Good chance that this alone costs him the election, so the real say will be with the voters

Off shore accounts aren't that difficult to understand. Nobody can prove where his money has been so nobody can come up with a figure. That's why it's over there.

I paid what my tax software told me to pay using tax tables?

I'm not making up excuses for being a "lib". I don't know if I support a majority of lib or con issues. It's pretty close. I can see myself supporting a Republican next time. I probably would have done so this time if there was a decent candidate. But the pretty dim McCain, Pailin and now Mittens....The republican party is like a black comedy - and that's why we have a black president. I see this as Bush's legacy and would be perfect for a tombstone.

"So bad he actually got a black guy elected president."

Now I will return when I'm 175 lbs. If Romney wins, please accept my early congratulations.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Do you have any actual evidence of wrongdoing to base your criticism on?

In my opinion, there is absolutely no wrong doing or illegal action of any kind. It's obviously a strategic and perfectly legal tax maneuver.

However, the entire situation does put a hole in one of the high held Republican ideals of the day. In many cases, the "job creators" are much better described as "personal bank account stuffers."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, consumers are the real job creators as they are the ones who drive demand and growth.